Posted
by
Soulskillon Tuesday May 15, 2012 @06:33PM
from the grandkids-never-visit dept.

Dr Caleb writes "According to the Globe and Mail, 'The Internet surveillance legislation sponsored by Public Safety Minister Vic Toews has disappeared down a dark legislative hole. For all intents and purposes, the bill is dead. If the Harper government still wants to pass a law that would make it easier for police to track people who use the web to commit crimes, it will have to start from scratch.' The bill has been sent to a public safety committee for extensive revision, but it must be debated for five hours on the House floor first, and that won't happen before summer recess. This is a followup to the story we discussed in February titled 'Against Online Surveillance? You Must Be "For" Child Porn.'"

It only means that since it couldn't / didn't pass in the open house they'll enact something similar as a back room Order in Council or some such thing like an Executive Order in the United States system and it will be even worse for the general population. We're entering an age of tyranny here folks and nothing done in open government will stop it. Back room deals, executive orders and orders in council until they achieve a complete martial law is the way things are going.

Sure, just conjure up a phony war, any kind. If the Yanks can do it, why not Harper too? War on terror. War on drugs. War on bubble gum (good job, Singapore!) - the possibilities are endless. Then pass another wartime measures act, same as the one that gave us income tax.

We've seen it happen south of the border often enough, and these things take on a life of their own. When do you think the DEA will get their mandate revoked, or the GST will be repealed*? Not in our lifetimes.

Orders in Council can only be made where legislation has given the Government the authority to do so. It cannot concoct new government powers out of thin air.

Agree and disagree. Governments in Canada have overstepped their legislated or constitutional authority, but they eventually get hauled back into line by the courts. On the whole, though, I don't remember that the over-reach has ever had a lasting effect -- other than getting the political party in power turfed out at the next election.

There seems to be a constant drumbeat that the Conservative government is hellbent on destroying freedoms and kicking the poor onto the streets. For myself, however, I think

It would be nearly impossible to do a worse job managing Canada's finances than the Conservatives have. They cut budgets in areas they don't agree with ideologically under the guise of fiscal conservatism, but spend much much more money on their own ideological initiatives (prisons, more military spending), enriching themselves and their friends, advertising, tax breaks where they are not needed, etc.

The NDP can never form government, and we should be worried if it did, but mainly due to the ridiculous f

You're a twat. Seriously, you don't know what the word means. You may want to lookup the NDP on Politcal Compass [politicalcompass.org]. Really, though, don't you want to say pinko commies, since that's more in line with your intellect.

They're barely on the left, and more properly described as centrist.

And PS - the left/right paradigm is weak. The country is being taken over my authoritarian fucktards, but you're too busy fretting about the commies. It's idiots like you that have brought the level of political discourse down to s

The Progressive Conservatives were indeed in and out of power for decades, but that party no longer exists. The present government was originally called the Reform Party of Canada, and never governed under that name. It renamed itself the Conservative Reform Alliance party after the PC party collapsed. It's so far to the right that all the other parties are relatively clustered on the left, hence splitting the vote among them and allow

Despite your claims that the party is so far right, it in fact governs pretty much in the centre, as most gov'ts find they must do unless they want to lose power. On at least some issues, the Conservative Party is to the left of the previous Progressive Conservative government from 1984-1993.

Most of the actual Progressive conservatives, you know, the ones who actually know what the word "progressive" means, have jumped ship and are now part of the other parties. Just ask the premier of Quebec.

The only remnants of the original Progressive Conservatives who are still supporting the CPC are the ones who are too stupid to realize that it's not the PC party any more, and the ones who were the right-wing extremist minority in the days of the PC.

How about an Kalashnikov or H&K MP5 that has been set to semi auto and ammo limited? No? Why not since I can buy the same gun that was used in the Montreal Massacre? How come that wasn't banned?Oh right it doesn't look evil.Stupid hypocritical laws

Why not since I can buy the same gun that was used in the Montreal Massacre? How come that wasn't banned?

The Browning 9mm HP is a restricted firearm, meaning you need a special permit to own it, it is illegal to transport it unless it's locked in a case in a "made safe" state (firing pin removed, not loaded, magazine stored in a separate case). Additionally, it doesn't support a fully automatic firing mode like an MP5 or an AK-47, and the maximum legally allowed magazine size is 5 rounds.

These laws/requirements existed before the Ecole Polytechnique massacre, btw... the reason the laws didn't get updated is because the person who was responsible for the massacre was already violating a half dozen gun laws. More laws wouldn't have made a difference in that case, and the one thing that they *could* have done to prevent it from happening has already been done: it's *significantly* harder to get a restricted weapons permit today than it was 20 years ago. Of course, the cons scrapped the gun registry, which was the *other* law that got changed as a result of that event.

GP's point is that a bunch of guns are prohibited in Canada for the sole reason of looking scary or having unsavory associations - for example, AK or MP5 (we're obviously talking about civilian semi auto versions with 5-round mags here). It's pretty obvious bullshit when AK [wikimedia.org] is "prohibited" (and so is any variation, including Saiga in any caliber!), while Vz 58 [wikimedia.org] is "unrestricted". Or, similarly, FAL being prohibited while M14 is perfectly okay. Or why ARs are always "restricted" regardless of barrel length, w

Of course, the cons scrapped the gun registry, which was the *other* law that got changed as a result of that event.

I believe it was the long gun registry that got scrapped. i.e. rifles and shotguns. Regulations on restricted weapons and hand guns were not changed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry) Long guns are just not the weapon of choice for your average massacre.

I am cheering. I am sure I am not alone.
There is a system in place. I don't see any reason for a new law. I personally would bet that any law enforcement official asking a judge for a warrant for a pedo case is going to get their warrant in a flash.
Deserved or not, pedophiles are the biggest boogiemen of our time.

Recently discussed this with a cop. It isn't so easy. He said most warrants for wiretaps are 600-odd pages and take a god awful long time to get through. Part of the bill would let them tell the phone company to start collecting data on someone while they went through the process of getting warrant signed. Once the warrant was approved, then they'd get access to all the data and could make their case. One of the problems, even with pedos, is that they know the guy is a Bad Dude, they know he's committing crimes, but they can't get the evidence because they can't get the wiretap in time. I definitely don't agree with the bill, but it isn't so cut a dry as some people make it out to be.

It should not be easy. I think the 4th amendment to the US constitution has it pretty close to right. However, it also shouldn't take 600 pages. If you can't say what you want to intercept and why in a couple of pages, you shouldn't be doing it anyway.

Then I would say that is a bureaucratic problem with obtaining a warrant. Fix the problem with obtaining a warrant, don't try and create a law to simply bypass the system. That is lazy and stupid, and wrong.

I am not a cop, however I find it VERY hard to believe that it takes a 600 page report to acquire your average wiretap warrant. I would say either you cop friend is full of bullshit, or if indeed that is true, then the system of obtaining warrants needs to be examined in detail and streamlined.

Quiet and Lonely, just like Vic Toews is now.
The whole thing was a "Gold Dig 'Em" tactic. He was going through an ugly divorce (he cheated on his wife, probably a big deal for a Mennonite) and so
he stirred shit and made people him hate him for something else. But it back-fired on him. Now he's both seen as an adulterer scum and a wannabe Nazi. Much more the latter because of his time as the Federal Minister of Justice where he tried to draft draconian laws.
Well less a Nazi, more a clueless old man out o

In Canada we reached just over 61% turnout in the federal election in 2011, which was a slight rise from a historically low 59% in 2008. With the way our first past the post system works, that meant the Conservative Party of Canada became government with only about 40% of the total vote - working out to just 5-6 million people out of a country of 35 million.

Getting people to vote is extremely important, yes. But having a voting system that is fair and accurately represents voter preference is also necessary.

Don't blame the voting system. Nearly 40% of the population are pathetic useless losers. YOu don't change anything by sitting on your fucking hands at home moaning about the electoral system. If even 5% of those worthless piles of garbage had shown up at the polls, it's likely the outcome would have been another Tory minority, and Harper would likely have been finished.

There's nothing sanctified or noble about not showing up at the polls. It's just sheer idiocy and laziness. I mean, they even do advanced po

There's nothing sanctified or noble about not showing up at the polls. It's just sheer idiocy and laziness.

If one is indifferent as to who gets elected then it is best that they do not vote. If they vote then, on average, they will vote for whoever invested the most in advertising. This is not the way it should be. If you don't care or are insufficiently informed of the candidate's policies then stay at home or cast a blank vote.

If only 50% of a population votes then that tells you the other 50% do not care which party gets elected. There is nothing wrong with that. Should the governing party screw up then you know that you will get a much higher turnout at the next election. It is the ability to vote that is important and keeps the politicians in line not the actual vote.

The majority who were against it, like me voted. The ones who didn't care, didn't.

I am sorry I voted against you because I felt I'd rather have a local candidate who I elected then someone who was appointed by the party. An appointed candidate to me is a shill, and even if I had a local candidate still, a shill would cancel his or her input and be impossible to find when it's lynching time.

Getting people to vote is extremely important, yes. But having a voting system that is fair and accurately represents voter preference is also necessary.

I think we are seeing in Greece and Italy the downsides of a more fair and accurate representation. As we have seen, voters do not always do what is in their best interests. The multitude of parties in these countries means that outright majorities are all but unknown, and that in order for a coalition to get enough support to form a governemnt, it must do things that are not always wise. We've seen this in the last few years when the Conservatives in Canada were having to do things to appease opposition pa

On the other hand, there is the example of Germany, which still seems to have its financial head screwed on right, and I don't have an answer for that. Maybe there are some constitutional guards, or maybe it has something to do with German character, whatever that is.

AFAIK isn't Germany one of the few economies in Europe that isn't being fucked sideways by bad decisions?

We had a 61% turnout last year, but since the FPTP system is so retarded, our Canadian version of Dubya won a (narrow) majority despite getting less than 40% of the votes.

The way most of us read the results, it means over 60% did NOT want that guy to win. Either way, since getting his majority he's been ramming all these big brother bills down our throat, along with unprecedented military spending and all the other abusive stuff you neighbours have been subjected to for the last few terms. Shit's going downhill fast and riots are become more and more frequent. Amazing how easiy one sellout can ruin a country for millions of people.

For most of the time that the US was sinking like a stone, Harper had a minority government, and as such couldn't really screw it up too badly. Now Asshat (My pet name for him.) has a majority and so we will soon be just as fucked as the US.

He didn't keep Canada from sinking. Banking governance and policies put in place by previous governments were largely responsible for that. And all that money that Harper found in 2009-2010 was because the Governor General forced him to make a budget that Parliament would support before she would grant him the prorogation that saved his government from being replaced in a vote of no confidence.

I rather suspect that Harper himself (and the Conservatives in general) had little to do with our economic stability. That's more likely due to huge resource exports as well as stricter banking regulation.

Tightening up on crime while the crime rate is dropping is a joke. The claim that they have a majority "mandate" with 40% of the vote is a joke. They've been found to have breached parlimentary privilege multiple times, they've been found to be in contempt of Canadian parliament. They intentionally violated the election spending limit, they prorogued parliament twice to avoid nonconfidence votes, they fired the President of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for reporting that the Chalk River nuclear facility had a high risk level, they lowballed the F-35 spending costs, they lowballed the Libya mission costs, and a string of other problems.

And now they're running neck-in-neck with the NDP. The problem in the end isn't the Tories, it's that the bottom fell out of the Liberal party, and someone had to govern in the meantime. Now that it looks like the Bloc is about to be taken off life support and Quebec has decided to re-engage with Federalism, and the majority of center and left-of-center voters have decided to send the last remaining major Western liberal party into the dustbin and gone with a left-of-center party, we ought to see things change.

Yes, Harper's policies, or at least some of them, are pretty fucking stupid. But it's not like the Liberals before the didn't have stupid policies. You go back to Confederation, and it's littered with stupid policies, and some outright abusive ones. Canada has survived far worse governments than Harper's, but because so many people are either just as ideologically handicapped as Tory supporters are, or have so little knowledge of the country's political history, they make Harper into this almost comically Darth Vaderesque figure. It's moronic. He isn't that good and he isn't that bad, and he's now facing a country that's basically throwing the Liberals into a distant third place rump and saying "Those NDP guys look interesting."

And you know what, if the NDP gets in, they'll pass a bunch of stupid policies, and you'll have a bunch of right wing morons of about your equivalent mental capacity comparing Mulcair to Josef Stalin and claiming Canada is going to become a Communist state, blah blah blah,

That's a common complain in most Parliamentary democracies, hardly unique to Canada. But if MPs feel they are being constrained and forced into awkward positions by their leadership (and by all accounts this is felt by MPs across party lines), then there is an obvious solution. Do what British MPs have done when they've decided the leader of their party has gone off the rails; threaten a revolt.

I look at the British Parliament and groups like the Tories' 1922 committee, which will happily piss on the leader

I'm guessing you weren't alive during the late 1970's and early 80's. They're still far, far, far above what we have now in terms of a recession in the last "75 years" oddly, I can still find a job easier walking out my front door today as I did 10 years ago.

1. You imagine that the bulk of your fellow citizens would be the least bit interested in joining your uprising.2. Even if they did, that new political movements of vast numbers wouldn't already have popped up and forced change.3. That the stable and relatively well governed country you attempted to foist a new government on would actually be improved.

You know, a quick survey of all the badly governed places in the world tells you that Canada is pretty fucking prospero

I'm am of the belief that only taking up arms is the way to go in the next 15 years to remove corruption

You don't need to "take up arms". You'll only end up hurting yourself. The person a gun owner is most likely to kill is himself.

Start with yourself. Change yourself. You don't like "corruption and corporate influence"? Well, the solution to that is self-evident. Then look at your family, your friends, your community. You've got plenty to do before you get anywhere near a need to "take up arms". W

Unfortunatly, they can just keep trying. Over and over again. Eventually people will have grown tired of the massive public effort required to kill this stuff, and it'll pass.

I really wish there was a legal remedy for this. Some kind of "can't try it again for 10 years" law. Of course who decides what law is too similar to a previously failed one is the huge problem with that.. but a man can dream.

I made a comment back in febuary that it would be dead and roasted, got modded a troll for it. Always fun to point out to/. that this is indeed how it works in Canada, despite how much the media froths at the mouth that the government doesn't "listen to the people" and all the rest.

People seem to forget that the media in canada is like the media in the US, hyperventingly anti-conservative to the extreme. If he said the sky was blue, they'd say it was purple covered in red splotches then trot out the expe

Oh give me a break. When the Liberals were falling to pieces, they were blaming the media for being right wing.

I can't remember who said it, but the saying "A politician complaining about the press is like a captain complaining about the sea."

The Tories have gotten bad press because they've done bad things. In their incarnation as a minority government, they invented out of thin air the notion of executive privilege, which has never existed in the Canadian constitution. They used prorogation to evade a confidence motion, becoming only the second government in Canadian history to use it to avoid censure by Parliament (the first being good old Sir John A Macdonald who was trying to avoid paying the price for the Pacific Scandal). Now they have a pretty silly crime bill that it looks like at least some provinces are going to refuse to pay for, and have been caught fibbing about F-35 cost estimates. And what, you want the media to ignore that and just say nice things?

Oh give me a break. When the Liberals were falling to pieces, they were blaming the media for being right wing.

And when they were complicity stealing from the public, and shoveling friends off to diplomatic posts in order to avoid having them come before the AG, along with HCGC before parliament for adscam, the media were complicit in whitewashing for them.

I don't believe though I never said they didn't do bad things, the media in Canada though is heavily left wing. Though their new stepchild is the NDP.

Bullshit again. The media reported it, and with often barely contained glee, because there's one universal truth, and that is whatever leanings any particular press organization may have, that they all know that nothing sells like scandal. Adscam got massive amounts of coverage, even on CBC.

If this bill didn't pass the first time, it's because of the people who protested against it. It's because of the petitions, and it's because we were lucky enough that Toews made a few mistake. We'll have to keep fighting this sort of stuff and ultimately, the Tories can do what the hell they want and they are showing this all the time as they even refuse to debate some key bills in parliament now.

Well Now it's not just the Pirates. The Entire world is in awe with the Malware and Virus, and other crackers and identity thieves. I think it really started to gain traction when the Mac/Apple world was exploited earlier this month. One way or another the Internet will not be the same in a few short years. The technology now exists to keep the Gated communities closed whilst still earning money. Hell just think we could all be using AOL if broadband hadn't expanded at the rate it did. Now we have Fac

The proximate cause for the demise of C-30 is not opposition or privacy commissioner complaints. C-30 died because there is a reasonably large subgroup of the Conservative party base which has Libertarian sentiments and opposes the invasion of privacy potential of C-30. If there was no strong opposition from their base, then C-30 would go through, just like C-11 is.

Just like in so many other things, large numbers of individuals have stopped paying their fair share. This is made only more sad is that all it takes is paying attention, and remembering who did what over the course of their terms and political careers come voting time.

The only way I could condone privatizing parts of the internet is if government stopped giving special privileges to ISPs and allowed new ISPs to form. If ISP pay their own way, they can control their network. If they get special privileges from the government, they should be regulated.

The internet is not just for porn, shopping, and creeping on people's facebook profiles...
Inform yourself, inform others, and be active in you democracy so you too can start reaping the rewards of the information revolution.

We've all seen examples of how the most homophobic people are the ones who get caught on their knees in men's rooms. Larry Craig comes to mind, of course, but there are many others.

It's hard not to suspect that people like Vic Toews, who are so quick to call everybody who disagrees with them a child molester, don't have some interesting pictures lurking on key drives that are never left lying around.

Only better at hiding the corruption. It is so bad, especially here in Quebec, that I am starting to seriously consider to expat myself in another banana republic where it is always sunny and living is cheaper.

The real concern here was the ambiguity of the telecommunications traffic...

The way the bill was framed was an internet bill against kiddie porn, but the lack of clear and concise definitions of what consitutes telecommunications traffic would have effectively handed them a golden key to all your electronic communication.

Not only would they be able to pursue and monitor my trolling, but also my prank calls... Bastards